Sep 9, 2009
Why mp3s suck, and how to hear it
I hate mp3, and this post will tell you why.
DO NOT read this post if you have a large collection of mp3s, enjoy listening to them and can’t hear any problems with them, because it’ll ruin them for you !
There’s been plenty written on how mp3 works, and why lossy compression sounds worse than uncompressed audio in general. My aim here is to demonstrate how mp3 sounds bad, for all the people who keep telling me there’s no difference.
I’m going to give you clear guidelines and examples on what to listen for and the negative effects of mp3, but there’s no going back – once you can hear the problems, you’ll never stop hearing them.
This isn’t limited to audiophiles, or “golden ears”, by the way – in my opinion anyone can hear this stuff, with a few pointers.
So seriously, unless you’re prepared to start using Ogg Vorbis, FLAC or AAC - stop reading now !
Still here ? Good.
First, I need to make this clear – I have nothing against lossy audio or data compression in itself – I do most of my casual listening on an iPod, using 128kbps AAC files – they sound fine. Not as good as the original CDs, obviously, but OK. And yes, I’m well aware that AAC is just a more advanced version of mp3. But the fact is that mp3 has fundamental limitations – even at higher bitrates.
Next – I’m also a pragmatist. mp3 is a temporary phenomenon, just like AM radio, cassettes and CDs. In the long run, none of those have killed music, and neither will mp3, or lossy compression in general. So, why the rant ?
Because people keep saying mp3 sounds great, or “indistinguishable from CD” and it’s just not true.
mp3 isn’t good enough
It doesn’t matter what encoder you use, it doesn’t matter what settings you use or what pre-processing you apply – mp3 just doesn’t cut it. AAC and later, more sophisticated encoders use more advanced encoding methods, and sound better to varying degrees, but mp3 just FAILs.
How does it fail ? That depends a little on the encoder being used, but some of my own pet hates include:
- mp3 sizzle – the artificial, unnatural swirling metallic noises that sound like someone’s added chime bars to everything, or there’s a mosquito buzzing in your ear. Some people actually say we prefer these noises in mp3s – I say bullshizzle !
- Added distortion – Yet another side effect of the so-called Loudness Wars. mp3 encoders rarely include any headroom for the encoding process itself, so the added processing pushes the music even further over the limits, generating inter-sample peaks and adding even more distortion in the process
- Flat, two-dimensional sound mp3 works by throwing away musical information that we supposedly can’t hear – up to 90% of the original information, at 128kbps. That means all the subtle, delicate stuff, like ambience, space and realism. So a lush, three-dimension original is reduced to a flat, cardboard replica of itself
- Mushiness All but the very best mp3 encodes just sound fuzzy, muddled and – well, mushy !
Hear for yourself
Don’t take my word for it – here are some examples. First, a truly nasty 128kbps mp3 example, from a Deep Purple live album I mixed a while back:
Please install Flash plugin
(Before anyone jumps on me, I’ve heard even a 256 kbps mp3s sounding like this – I’ve just used a low quality version to make the point.)
If that doesn’t sound too bad to you at first, try this - I’ve filtered the file to highlight the high frequencies. You can hear the problems most clearly when the vocals start:
Please install Flash plugin
Some people describe this effect as “sizzle”, or “swirlies”. It’s not just that I’ve removed all the bass, what I’m pointing out is the unatural bubbling, twinkling “chime-bar” type sound, or as my friend and fellow mastering engineer Nick Watson once called it, the “flocks of tweeting ultrasonic birdies”. It also reminds me of someone crinkling up tin foil !
Once you’ve picked it out, listen the first version again. Doesn’t sound so nice now, does it ? Can you ignore the swirlies, now you know they are there ?
Now download and listen to the original file:
‘Talk About Love – Excerpt’ – 5 MB WAV file
Listen to the clarity, punch, and bite of the WAV, compared to the swirly, soggy mess of an mp3. Which one do you prefer ?
The loss of depth, richness and three-dimensionality is more subtle side-effect, but just as unfortunate. Here’s a snippet of a recording I did for the brilliant Hans Koller, featuring Christine Tobin on vocals:
Please install Flash plugin
(This is a much better mp3 encode, with far fewer heinous swirlies. But still…)
Here’s the WAV version:
‘The Great Bear And The Small – Excerpt’ – 11 MB WAV File
Don’t expect the difference here to leap out at you straight away, it’s more a case of feeling it – listen to the swirls of the harp from 30 seconds in, listen to the piano and Christine’s voice – on the wav file, there’s a warmth, and a depth, and a sparkle that in the mp3 has just gone.
Listen to the wav several times over, then switch to the mp3. Do you honestly feel it sounds as good ? The mp3 is OK, but it’s just… meh. I’m not drawn in, my attention wanders, it doesn’t move me.
Something essential has been lost, and you can’t get it back. And once you’ve heard that loss, even cranking the data-rate up doesn’t help. The only solution is a more advanced format, or lossless files.
Try listening to the mp3s in your music collection. Go back and compare them to the CDs you ripped them from.
…Sorry.
Or click here to subscribe to the free RSS feed
Update: I’ve had lots of interest in this post, and lots of discussion, especially on link-sharing sites. There are a few common responses that I want to answer here.
No-one uses 128 kbps mp3s
Wrong. If you’ve made this comment, you probably already know about LAME and the all other flavours of mp3 codec, and you probably do choose to use higher bit-rates, but you’re in the minority. Most “regular listeners” go for the default settings – and even in iTunes this is only 160 kbps.
192/320 kbps sounds fine
Sometimes. This depends so heavily on the material, the encoder and the codec – you simply can’t make blanket assumptions. Ironically one of the factors that makes mp3 so popular – the fact that it’s free and open-source – also makes it far harder to get a decent encode. By contrast, the grip Apple have over the AAC format at least ensures consistently high standards of encoding.
You’re just an Apple fanboy
No. Well alright, yes – I am a big fan of Apple’s products, but there are plenty of other alternatives to mp3 – OGG Vorbis, FLAC etc. The only reason I mention AAC a lot is it’s a format I have deep experience of, and always sounded good (but not perfect !) to me.
And another thing
To everyone who keeps saying “just use 320 kbps”, I say – why ?!? mp3 simply has inherent limitations compared to other formats. The whole point of lossy audio is to save space. At 128 kbps that saving is 90% – well worth having. At 320 kbps though, that saving is only 60% and it still doesn’t sound great – I’d rather go with FLAC or Apple lossless, which can often achieve a 50% saving, and have something that sounds every bit as good as the source.
Image by Roger B
No related posts.
.gif "Dynamic Range Foundation - Active Member")
OK… an article that points out that “lossy” compression doesn’t sound as good. If it did, it would be called loseless, right? And 128Kbs MP3′s as an example? I’d love to set you up with a really well-done 320Kbs CBR MP3 vs. the original and see if you can guess the A/B difference more than 50% of the time. Bet you can’t.
Mate, why use mp3 at all at 320 Kbps ? Just go for FLAC or Apple lossless and be done with it. And actually, I’m pretty sure I could tell the difference. I’ve heard some really nasty 256 KBps LAME encodes, I don’t see that the little extra bandwidth is going to help.
mp3 will always be worse!! Any person who knows something about it, will tell ya mp3 sucks!
Use flac or ogg if you’re a diskspace-miser.
And I bet, that if you listen a lot of flac, you won’t be able to stand mp3!
update: I meant ogg-aoTuV, not standard ogg
Hey, is it possible to reduce mp3 artifacts? I know it’s impossible to remove ‘em but maybe just reduce it?
And best with free tools
MP3′S SUCK!!! Want me to prove it to you once and for all? I can.
Switch between stereo and mono on your amp while listening to MP3, no difference in sound. All the separation is taken out of the two channels.
Put that in your pipe ans smoke it!!!!
End of all discussion.
mp3 certainly eats up stereo information, often…
Jst Sy N T Lssy Cmprssn.
I do concur that AAC has a better algo, especially if fed 24 bit material.
Nuance, subtlety, presence, imaging/soundstaging, “thereness”, the emotional connection and involvement is still diminished, just not a blatantly and without obvious artifacts as with mp3.
But srsly, in this day and age of terabyte HDs and megabyte/second data transfer rates, do we really need any lossy audio data compression?
Is it an old bad habit?
Is it a leftover from earlier “wisdom” that distributed music should never be master quality?
Is it slightly more profitable?
Is there any way to reduce some mp3 artifacts such as hf cutoff or “squeal”
I don’t think judging the MP3 format based on poorly performing encoders is really fair. Sort of like judging vinyl based on picture discs, or judging the CD Audio format based on Death Magnetic.
Lossy audio compression (with few exceptions such as WavPack) works by discarding sounds that are masked by louder sounds. By highpassing there’s nothing to mask the artifacts.
Also you don’t mention VBR encoding anywhere. CBR encoding is inefficient, you’re throwing bits away at easy sections while complex sections suffer due to insufficient bitrate. CBR isn’t really good for anything but streaming.
Now, we got better alternatives, AAC and Ogg Vorbis as you mention (not counting FLAC as that covers a different niche) but MP3 remains the most compatible option.
Fair point, but I’m not judging based on poor encoders. The first example in the post is poor to help exaggerate the artefacts for people who are new to this, but the second encode uses my “favourite” mp3 encoder. The results are still worse than AAC at the same data-rate. And that’s my point – although the artefacts are less blatant, they still limit the potential of the format. CD at it’s best, and even vinyl, can potentially sound indistinguishable from the original source. mp3 never will.
One thing that I wish more people would emphasize is that music with high dynamic range compresses better (this applies to Ogg Vorbis and AAC as well as MP3)
@Phredreeke: say this to the recording companies
@Phredreeke: say this to the recording companies
Ian, it seems to me that you don’t actually know the algorithm and encoding methods of an actual MP3 encoder. You do not lose headroom. There is no dynamic range limiting or clipping associated with MP3 encoders at all. You should really take a peak at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org
These folks know what they’re talking about when it comes to digital audio encoding.
Hi Jorano,
I beg to differ !
Take an mp3 of a file where the average level is high and the original was peaking regularly at 0dBFS. Open it in a 32-bit floating-point audio app like SADiE, Wave Editor or Soundtrack Pro, and you’ll see the peak level is above 0dBFS. Regardless of what the encoder does, the reconstructed waveform will clip (unless the decoder reduces the gain, but I’ve never seen one that does).
To see an excellent demonstration of this, check out this video by Bob Katz – in particular around the five minute mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EgamkLkXW8
Cheers,
Ian
What mp3 encoder did you use in that test? Have you tried doing the same test with LAME v3.98?
@ Jorano,
Honestly, I don’t remember, but it will happen with any encoder where the source has a high average level – ie. most modern masters. More info here:
http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/lund_2004_distortion_tmt20.pdf
Quote from page 5: “data reduction codecs (MP3, AAC, DTS, AC3 etc.) may require up to 5 dB attenuation or more, depending on data rate.”
Ian
Who wants to carry 16,000 albums around? When are you ever going to access them?
Hearing how bad MP3 is can be as easdy as taking a track, decoding it in any Audio editor & swapping L/R stereo for M/S (Mid-Side) and muting the Mid component. This leaves just the wide information, and you can clearly hear the distortions and artefacts.
Vinyl? Don;t make me laugh. VInyl is a terrible format with a lousy S/N ratio and only sounds “good” because it is better than most modern hypercompressed CD is – the transients have room to breathe & you do not constantly distort the outputs.
Addendum.
Check this video out
http://www.tcelectronic.com/rome.asp
You want the second one from Thomas Lund – Loudness wars.
Ian you should still give LAME v3.98(use V0 setting) a chance. I’ve put a few audiophiles and trained musicians through an ABX test with WAV files and LAME encoded MP3s at the highest quality setting and they couldn’t tell the difference. These people had hearing ranges of 18kHz to even 20kHz.
@ Jorano, At 128 kbps, I’ve done this test, and I can hear the difference 100% accurately. At 320 kbps I’m sure it would be harder, but as I keep saying, I’m not interested ! At that data-rate, we might as well use a lossless codec and be done with it.
Isn’t the acronym self-explainatory?
LAME is lame
@Ian: I can hear the difference easily with mp3@192/CD (DR12 – Deliverance by Deliverance – 1989)
With 320 it’s harder but distinguishable anyway
I doubt any of you hear have even tested LAME and the fact that you guys are dismissing it without second thought is just plain ignorance.
If one can’t tell the difference between lossless and 320 kbps, lossless files would be a complete waste of disc space. We haven’t hit economical >100 GB micro sd cards and portable media players for large libraries yet.
Hi Jorano,
So you’re calling me a liar ? Cute.
You realise when I say “lossless” I’m talking about FLAC (or other lossless formats) but still compressed, right ? My point is that 128kbps is a really significant saving of bandwidth, even compared to FLAC. It’s worth sacrificing some quality if space is limited. But 320kbps is almost three times larger, and if I’m going to “spend” my storage on that higher data-rate , I’d prefer to use it for the best audio quality, rather than more music. My iPod is still only 2/3 full…
Ian
Where have I called anyone a liar? I don’t see any reason to get snarky.
In today’s digital storage technology, the size difference between 128 kbps vs 320 kbps is negligible. So like you said, using the best quality possible is preferable, which the newest version of LAME offers especially when it comes to portable media players.
Sorry if that came across as ratty but I’ve said several times that I have listened to LAME and it’s not good enough at the bandwidth. Whereas your previous post says you think we haven’t listened and are making ignorant assumptions.
Let’s agree to disagree.
I got a little jumpy because I’ve had so many conversations with audiophiles who’ve always put down anything that isn’t a CD or LP, and when I’ve put them through an ABX test, they’ve still found an excuse to stick with their asinine opinion. But because you are a professional who actually knows what he hears, I should have picked a better word than ignorant.
In the end, it’s all about application and if you can set up a good system no matter what format is being used, if you can please other people and yourself, nobody has to know what’s being utilized
That we agree on – it’s all about making sure you can enjoy the music
Yeah, but!
If you go flac, you won’t go back to lossy formats
You’re right, listening to my mp3 collection will never be the same again… Those cymbal sounds and Ess-vocals are ugly as hell, even at 320kbps…
To be perfectly honest with you, I think your opinion is biased. I’ve been loving and listening to music almost since I was born, mostly from sources like radio, tape, cd and mp3. I’ve listened to music through just about anything: really cheap alarm clocks, old stereos, car stereos (decent and very poor), high fi’s, great concert venues with top notch material, walkmans, discmans, minidiscs and mp3 players, with very poor and very reasonable pairs of headphones (not professional, but at least 70$ worth), etc.
I’m almost 23 now, I study electrical engineering, I’ve been playing guitar for a couple of years, and recording and producing music in my bedroom ever since. I listen to a lot of music from the most different genres, especially folk, pop, rock, some house, dance and jazz, but I do not neglect other styles like rnb, classical, bossa… you name it. I also can still hear frequencies up to 18khz (just tested this yesterday and while not being sure of the relevance to the matter, I’m just being safe and assuming it may be. 18khz is not a lot, but enough for any type of music I believe, and maybe a lot more than some of you older guys out there can hear).
I may not be the very best audiophile and I’m surely not even a professional but I do believe that my oppinion does have some significance due to all these factors. Just today I have been ripping some songs in very agressive pop, rock and dance styles, in wich differences between good and bad quality should be more noticeable due to the bigger dynamic range and faster tempo, to wav and then encoding them to mp3, cbr and vbr, ranging from 128k to 320k. I have never done this before since I found more practical to simply download music from the internet instead of ripping it, and I was completely amazed.
From the seven songs I encoded, only in the beginning of one I could somewhat clearly tell a minor difference between the wav file and the 128kbps encoded mp3. Yes, you read it right! 128kbps! In another one, playing through my speakers with the volume crancked up, I believe (but I’m not sure if I could really feel it or if it was just the placebo effect) I could notice a difference in the feel of the music, due to the resonance of my bedroom and body. And this was at my place using my production equipment, wich may not be spectacular, but does the job and would certainly be enough to allow me to tell the difference between an untouched wav file and a crappy mp3.
I believe that NOWADAYS, the practical difference between most cd’s and most mp3′s at 128kbps are almost nonexistent. I would say with a very high level of confidence that the vast majority of dedicated listeners wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between a cd and a well encoded mp3 file at 128kbps in the ambient and setup in wich they usually hear music. This, to my own amazement, happens, I believe, due to the compression technologies and processing hardware having improved so much over the last decade. I do have some older mp3 files encoded at 128kbps, and even at 160 and 192kbps that sound terrible! Is this because of the mp3 file format? NO! It’s just because at that time, people compromised sound quality for faster rips and also because such efficient compression algorythms simply weren’t available! Well, today, they are, and there is absolutelly no reason to compromise sound quality since even some of the cheapest computers today surpass the processing capabilities of the most expensive computers over a decade ago!
I may agree that maybe, if you are talking about really high end systems (wich you can find in good clubs) and loud volumes, you may be able to tell the difference from an mp3 file (even at bitrates up to 160 and 192kbps) and a cd track, especially in your body and dancefloor responses to the bass, and the overall distortion of high and low frequencies with crancked up volumes. Appart from that, it is my final oppinion that for personal use, encoding ANY genre of music above 192kbps VBR (I’m introducing a safe margin of error here also due to my testing not being all that extensive) is simply a big waste of time and space and total overkill.
Hi Chris,
Great ! Enjoy your mp3s
Personally I can hear the difference in my car, on my (decent but affordable) hi-fi and on standard iPod earbuds. Enough to make me not want to listen.
But everyone is different, and that’s cool.
Cheers !
Ian
Had a very short discussion on this matter with someone who runs a big dj-promo company in the UK a few years ago. He kept refusing to send me some decent lossless files, ‘no one can tell the difference anyway’. His second sentence: ‘I play 128kbps mp3′s on big club PA systems all the time and they sound perfectly fine to me’.
As I said, very short discussion.
Haven’t listened to anything he’s sent over since, although someone told me they use WAV files now…
Buy some quality speakers and the limitations of mp3 are painfully obvious.
mp3 is sooo bad it should be illegal. People buying tons of music from itunes and getting 5% of the song is robbery. People are generally clueless about this.
Obviously, the analog vinyl and tube amps are the very best for people that like to spend huge $$$. If you are on a limited budget, spend the money on speakers over anything else and forget the mp3, get flac (compressed but lossless file) that is the same as the original but smaller and NO loss of quality).
ANYONE that says mp3′s sound good have not heard the same music uncompressed with a good amp and speakers. Spend $200 on some Audio Engine speakers (3.5″ and built in amp) and any sub,and flac or CD music and you BEGIN your journey of audio pleasure. Anything less then this and your missing out.
Chris: You can barely hear the difference between mp3 and the cd? Your essay neglected some important info — what are the components of this system of yours? Kinda important don’t you think? Since you’re right and all.
Just as some say AAC-HE @ 96 is indistinguishable…
The way I see it: everything below lossless will be worse than original. Always a quality loss